The Counsellor's Corner
It was a bad week for police officers. A federal judge decided that a California
law which permitted police officers to sue people for lodging false complaints
against them is unconstitutional.
Federal Judge Gary Taylor decided that the law treated complaints made
by citizens against police officers differently than complaints made by
citizens against all other government officers, and that this would constitute
“an impermissible content-based discrimination against a type of speech.”
This ruling stemmed from an incident occuring
in April of 1998 in which a Cypress man was stopped by a Long Beach Police
Officer. A Mr. Gritchen was stopped for speeding and the next day he went to
the Long Beach Police Department to file a complaint. His complaint claimed that officer Gordon Collier had alcohol on
his breath at the time of the stop and was discourteous and argumentative to
him. The Long Beach Police Department
then conducted an internal investigation and concluded that Officer Collier had
not acted inappropriately in any way.
The officer’s attorney then filed a lawsuit against Mr. Gritchen suing
him for defamation, specifically referring to the allegations that the officer
was intoxicated when he stopped Mr. Gritchen.
While Judge Taylor acknowledged that this law might help protect police
officers from untrue complaints, his concern was that it might be used to
discourage legitimate complaints.
In this matter, Mr. Gritchen was defended by
the ACLU, which was extremely happy with the ruling. An ACLU spokesman indicated that, “This ruling affirms the basic
right of all citizens to speak out about police misconduct.” The ACLU spokesman further pointed out that
citizens will no longer have to be concerned about losing their life savings if
they file a complaint against a police officer.
This case may well be appealed, at least that
is the position of the General Counsel for the Los Angeles Police Protective
League. The law in question, Civil Code Section 47.5, only allows officers to
sue for false complaints if it is found they have been filed maliciously. The League claims that police officers who
are doing an honest job now have no remedy in the law to respond to those who
file false complaints.
Statistically speaking, there were
approximately 8,000 civilian complaints against police officers in 1998, and 25
of them resulted in lawsuits being filed by police officers against the citizen
complainants pursuant to Civil Code Section 47.5.
I imagine that this ruling will be appealed,
and it is my hope that it will be affirmed.
This is a bad law and the ruling is appropriate. Perhaps our legislators in Sacramento can
draw up a new piece of legislation that will protect police officers in a way
that doesn’t curtail the rights of those who have complaints. This particular case illustrates the problem
with the present law. How could Mr.
Gritchen possibly prove that the officer was impaired by alcohol at the time he
was stopped? By the time the complaint
is filed, and certainly by the time the complaint is investigated; if the
officer was impaired by alcohol, the alcohol would now be out of his
system. It would have dissipated and
there would be no way for Mr. Gritchen’s complaint to be proved either true or
false.
The Police Protective League is concerned
that police officers can lose their jobs because of inappropriate and false
complaints; however it would be my fervent hope that a police agency would not
take any action against an officer until the matter was fully investigated and
a conclusion was reached.
It will be interesting to follow this ruling
on appeal to see whether or not the appellate court agrees with Judge Gary
Taylor. It is my hope that the ruling
is upheld, this law remains unconstitutional, and the police departments and
legislators try again.
Dr. Charles J. Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale law
firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger, and a therapist at the Foothill Centre for
Personal and Family Growth. Mr. Unger
writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological issues.